For instance, it is not at all the case that most people know enough calculus to really do science, but we all understand what it is to repeat an experiment. We understand what it is to measure. We understand what it is to predict something definite so that correctness or incorrectness is sufficiently clear. This requires the use of language and a basic knowhow for getting around in the world. Science would not be intelligible without this knowhow. — macrosoft
Understanding what it is to repeat an experiment, to measure and to predict just are instances of understanding science I would say. So it is really not a matter of science being unintelligible without these understandings or abilities, but of there being no science without them. — Janus
But phenomenology is not science, in fact according to Husserl it specifically brackets the concerns of science to focus on the subjective nature of experience; on the "what it is like'. So, I think phenomenology is properly descriptive, and although description is of course part of science it is the mere beginning of it. — Janus
Surely "the walk matches the talk" only when there is settled opinion? — Janus
His point, since it is about necessary Being (to contextualise it to Heideggarian), is that Being is not "for us" at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In a world in which it is guaranteed anything is possible, then we can hold out that death or injustice might be overcome. Not in the sense it must be, as detailed within what might be ferried as "faith based thinking," but in the sense that finitude doesn't doom us to death or injustice. Just because we die and injustice occurs, we don't have to take them as necessary. Something we can always be certain about, since the non existing God of contingency (death might be overcome, justice might occur) is necessary. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I just worried about how you were seemingly equating what is an out and out materialist argument (the possibility of resurrection occurring through states) with speculation and some sort of faith style argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness
and settled opinion that transcends traditional culturally ingrained beliefs (which can never be shared globally) seems to be possible only with the benefit of science. — Janus
He's not using machine like logic to deny nature is machine like. Quite the opposite, he's saying it is only/necessarily machine like, so we can never substitute in a rule or idea which would give a definite promised outcome. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Since it is necessary the world doesn't care, we cannot ever close possible events off to a particular expectation we have. — TheWillowOfDarkness
When immortality is promised, it's some sort of certainty attached to the actual outcome. You will live some sort of (after)life. — TheWillowOfDarkness
From one angle, I appreciate you doing all of that work, but from my perspective, all of that work is only compounding the problems. I could pick all of the problems apart, or even just one at a time, which is what I typically do when I'm trying to encourage focus, and then you'd be an apologist for what I'm picking apart in maybe an even longer post, and then I'd have additional problems with that, and then you'd be an apologist for it in another really long post, and I'd have additional problems with that, and it would just never end.IMV, if I can be equally honest, this is you reading your concerns into what for me is pretty clear. — macrosoft
-if you want to basically try to sell his merits to me- — Terrapin Station
. I could pick all of the problems apart, or even just one at a time, which is what I typically do when I'm trying to encourage focus, and then you'd be an apologist for what I'm picking apart in maybe an even longer post, and then I'd have additional problems with that, and then you'd be an apologist for it in another really long post, and I'd have additional problems with that, and it would just never end. — Terrapin Station
The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole. — Hegel
How about "short, clear,to the point, that I'd agree with/that I'd think is not constructed in a way that suggests beliefs that are misconceived if not outright wrong"? — Terrapin Station
It is impossible to be short, clear, and to the point and significantly meaningful. — kinda-sorta-impossibly-short-Hegel
It is impossible to be short, clear, and to the point and significantly meaningful. — kinda-sorta-impossibly-short-Hegel
If you don't even know what someone is saying or haven't even looked at it, how can you have any idea whether an idea is wrong or misconceived? — TheWillowOfDarkness
Personally I think it's a mess Pretty much every phrase there is problematic. Just for one example, "the "self-consciousness of his essential being"? First off, essentialism is muddle-headed in general. Secondly, what does "self" add there that "consciousness" without the "self" modifier wouldn't do just as well? And what is "consciousness of his being" saying, really, anyway? It seems like a needlessly rococo way of just talking about consciousness or awareness period. — Terrapin Station
You outright said you won't read these philosophers because they'll only say something meaningless. — TheWillowOfDarkness
None of that addresses the content of the argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness
You misread the use of "essential being" as talking about one sort of essential. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yeah, that's not something I at all agree with. (Which probably should be obvious given what I was asking for.) — Terrapin Station
Aside from that, in my view it's a matter of "the emperor's new clothes" basically. — Terrapin Station
Maybe read a philosopher who isnt just a big mishmash of gobbledygook instead. :joke:
Staying away from the continentalists is a good idea in general. :yum: — Terrapin Station
Then why would you write "quote me"? And why would you assume that I'm making a comment based on textual evidence rather than other possibilities? — Terrapin Station
In general, if I don't agree with what someone is saying, and especially if in addition I think that they're saying things that are incoherent, I feel that they don't communicate well, etc. it's not going to work to assume that the fault is mine rather than theirs, especially not over some extended period of time. — Terrapin Station
There's a way to show that one is thinking and communicating clearly and coherently even though some material, some vocabulary, some ideas might be unfamiliar. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.